4 ms·

> amazing for Apple and its shareholers This only makes sense if you know nothing about Apple's business. You really think they're doing this to save $50 from

> amazing for Apple and its shareholers This only makes sense if you know nothing about Apple's business. You really think they're doing this to save $50 from ~5m Macs? You really think all this upheaval is for a mere $250m a year in savings? It'll cost them 10x that in pain alone to migrate to a new platform. Come on now....$250m is nothing at Apple scale. Think bigger. Even if you hate Apple, think bigger about their nefariousness (if your view is that they have bad intentions - one I don't agree with).

alharith 6y ago
It also only makes sense if you know nothing about economics in general. Lowering the price while maintaining existing margins just opens the door to more consumers available to purchase the product and overall increases shareholder value due to more sales.
thefounder 6y ago
I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m. I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. And they wouls save this every year. Will this change cost them 10x in pain alone? I doubt it. They already make the chips.
- askafriend 6y ago
  > I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken - I recalled numbers for the wrong timeframe. > I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. The true cost of this move is reflected in more than the R&D. This is a long multi-year effort involving several parties with competing interests. People are talking here as if they just flipped a switch to save costs. Let me make this clear. In my view, this is an offensive/strategic move to drive differentiation, not a defensive move to save costs (though if this works, that could be a big benefit down the road). Apple has a long history of these kinds of moves (that don't just involve chips). This is the same response I have to people peddling conspiracy theories that Apple loves making money off of selling dongles as a core strategy (dongles aren't the point, wireless is; focusing on dongles is missing the forest for the trees).
  - lazysloth 6y ago
    You aren't making anything clear, just straw man arguments. Apple switches architecture when it suits them, you think they switched from powerpc to intel was for differentation? Nope, it was cost and performance aka value.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      > Apple switches architecture when it suits them The question isn't whether it suits them. The question is: "Why did they choose to take on the level of risk in this portion of their business and what is the core benefit they expect?" If the the main reason was cost savings, this would be a horrible way to go about it. There's a better answer: Intel can't deliver the parts they need at the performance and efficiency levels Apple needs to build the products the way they want to build them. This is not a secret. There is a ton of reporting and discussion around this spanning a decade about Intel's pitfalls, disappointments, and delays. Apple might also want much closer alignment between iOS and MacOS. Their chip team has demonstrated an ability to bring chipsets in-house, delivering performance orders of magnitude better than smartphone competition on almost every metric, and doing it consistently on Apple's timelines. It only seems natural to drive a similar advantage on the Mac side while having even tighter integration with their overall Apple ecosystem.
      - lazysloth 6y ago
        Oh, so we are talking about value now? Please stick to an argument after you fail to defend it. You already used your dongle argument no one asked for.
        askafriend 6y ago
        > Oh, so we are talking about value now? If you want to boil this conversation into one dimension, I'm not your guy - you'd be better suited by finding someone else to talk to. Cheers!
        6y ago
lmm 6y ago
It saves them much more over the long term if it lets them get away from having two different processor architectures. It paves the way for more convergence between their OSes. Eventually a macbook will be just an ipad with a keyboard attached, and vice versa. Yes, they're a big company. But they're also a mature company. A lot of their efforts are going to be boring cost-cutting measures, because that's how mature companies stay profitable.

alharith 6y ago

It also only makes sense if you know nothing about economics in general. Lowering the price while maintaining existing margins just opens the door to more consumers available to purchase the product and overall increases shareholder value due to more sales.

thefounder 6y ago

I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m. I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. And they wouls save this every year. Will this change cost them 10x in pain alone? I doubt it. They already make the chips.

askafriend 6y ago
> I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken - I recalled numbers for the wrong timeframe. > I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. The true cost of this move is reflected in more than the R&D. This is a long multi-year effort involving several parties with competing interests. People are talking here as if they just flipped a switch to save costs. Let me make this clear. In my view, this is an offensive/strategic move to drive differentiation, not a defensive move to save costs (though if this works, that could be a big benefit down the road). Apple has a long history of these kinds of moves (that don't just involve chips). This is the same response I have to people peddling conspiracy theories that Apple loves making money off of selling dongles as a core strategy (dongles aren't the point, wireless is; focusing on dongles is missing the forest for the trees).
- lazysloth 6y ago
  You aren't making anything clear, just straw man arguments. Apple switches architecture when it suits them, you think they switched from powerpc to intel was for differentation? Nope, it was cost and performance aka value.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > Apple switches architecture when it suits them The question isn't whether it suits them. The question is: "Why did they choose to take on the level of risk in this portion of their business and what is the core benefit they expect?" If the the main reason was cost savings, this would be a horrible way to go about it. There's a better answer: Intel can't deliver the parts they need at the performance and efficiency levels Apple needs to build the products the way they want to build them. This is not a secret. There is a ton of reporting and discussion around this spanning a decade about Intel's pitfalls, disappointments, and delays. Apple might also want much closer alignment between iOS and MacOS. Their chip team has demonstrated an ability to bring chipsets in-house, delivering performance orders of magnitude better than smartphone competition on almost every metric, and doing it consistently on Apple's timelines. It only seems natural to drive a similar advantage on the Mac side while having even tighter integration with their overall Apple ecosystem.
    - lazysloth 6y ago
      Oh, so we are talking about value now? Please stick to an argument after you fail to defend it. You already used your dongle argument no one asked for.
      - askafriend 6y ago
        > Oh, so we are talking about value now? If you want to boil this conversation into one dimension, I'm not your guy - you'd be better suited by finding someone else to talk to. Cheers!
        6y ago

lmm 6y ago

It saves them much more over the long term if it lets them get away from having two different processor architectures. It paves the way for more convergence between their OSes. Eventually a macbook will be just an ipad with a keyboard attached, and vice versa. Yes, they're a big company. But they're also a mature company. A lot of their efforts are going to be boring cost-cutting measures, because that's how mature companies stay profitable.